In the public plenary session at the Constitutional Court on the Balluku case, SPAK prosecutors argued that the Special Court's decision to suspend the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Infrastructure from office did not create any conflict of competence between the institutions. According to them, it is Prime Minister Edi Rama who is interfering, obstructing the investigation.
SPAK prosecutors declared before the Constitutional Court that Edi Rama should not be legitimized as a requesting party, as no interest of his has been directly violated.
SPAK also argued that after the Constitutional Court's interim decision, which reinstated Belinda Balluku, the investigation has been damaged, as there is evidence that she attempted to destroy evidence.
Ilir Rusmali, representative of the Presidency, implied that there is a risk that prosecutors and judges will abuse the law, suspending ministers and, consequently, paralyzing the functioning of the government.
On the other hand, representatives of the Council of Ministers argued that the GJKKO has interfered with the powers of the executive and has hindered the work of the government by suspending Balluk. They emphasized that a minister enjoys immunity just like a deputy and, therefore, a request to the Assembly is needed to determine security measures.
The Constitutional Court, after hearing the arguments of the parties, completed its review of the case and is expected to issue a decision, in a process that has caused strong clashes between the majority and the justice institutions. Belinda Balluku is accused by SPAK of abuses with tenders worth millions of euros.
